Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 26-27
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
One sign in FE (→EE) is most probably an arbitrary decision of the engraver of FE. It is proved by bars 214-215, in which all sources have a one-bar-long compatible , which in the manuscripts, hence also in the base text to FE, was marked only as repetition of the discussed bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions , Hairpins denoting continuation |
|||||||||||
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give the accents, long and short, on the basis of the clear notation of GC (→GE). The omission of the second one in FE is probably a result of the engraver's oversight. The EE1 version is a typical misrepresentation of a long accent, and GE was the probable inspiration for the EE2 revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we suggest an accent in line with the analogous bar 11. Similarly in bar 219. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we give two accents written in GC, since the top one (short) could have been added there by Chopin, despite the presence of the bottom one (long). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC |
|||||||||||
b. 37
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The absence of the wedge in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight of the engraver. Anyways, Chopin's resignation from the sign seems to be highly unlikely. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |